PrivatBank and the military argue over the debt: did the bank condemn almost 60,000?

The military does not agree to pay the loan debt to PrivatBank in the amount of 59,947 hryvnias

PrivatBank requires the military serviceman to repay the loan amount in the amount of 59,947 hryvnias. But he does not agree, motivating it by the fact that the bank did not provide sufficient confirmations to substantiate its demands. This is reported in the decision of the Rokytnyan district court of the Kyiv region, published on November 7, 2025.

On February 15, 2022, the citizen, having studied the conditions of lending, verified the loan passport and personally signed the application for joining the provisions and rules of the provision of banking services. He used the credit limit, returned the used part of the credit limit and made payments for the use of the credit limit, but stopped providing the bank with funds in time to cover the loan arrears, interest, and other expenses according to the terms of the agreement. The financial institution fulfilled its obligations under the agreement in full, namely, provided it with the opportunity to operate with credit funds under the conditions defined by the agreement and within the limits of the established credit limit. The client undertook to return the used part of the credit limit in accordance with the terms of the agreement, but on his part violated the terms of the agreement, as a result of which a debt arose, which as of April 29, 2025 amounts to 59,947 hryvnias, of which: 48,223 hryvnias is the debt for the loan body and 11,723 hryvnias is the debt for overdue interest. Taking into account the mentioned circumstances, the court asks to oblige it in favor of JSC CB “PrivatBank” to pay the debt under the credit agreement for the provision of banking services No. b/n dated February 15, 2022 in the amount of 59,947 hryvnias.

The man, objecting to the satisfaction of the claims, submitted to the court on July 18, 2025 a response to the claim, in which he asks to reject the claims. In substantiation of his objections, he indicated that the bank did not provide sufficient evidence to support his demands. Namely, there was no evidence of registration and conclusion between the parties and, accordingly, the receipt by the borrower of the provisions and rules for the provision of banking services, the client’s memo and tariffs, so that together with the application, it would testify to the duly concluded contract between the parties on the provision of banking services. Indicates that it cannot be considered an integral part of the credit agreement concluded between the parties, if such provisions do not contain the borrower’s signature; the presence of proper and admissible evidence was not established, which would confirm that the borrower understood these provisions when signing the borrower’s application, as well as that the provisions contained an extended statute of limitations at the time of signing the borrower’s application, or that such provisions, in particular regarding the extension of the statute of limitations, were not changed. No evidence was provided that the corresponding card was issued to him, nor was the court provided with information confirming the card’s validity period, which are important terms of the contract, and evidence of the crediting of credit funds to the card. Evidence of the opening of an account in his name, statements on this account, which should have confirmed the flow of funds, the presence or absence of debt, and from which the court should have established the exact amount of funds received by the borrower, were not provided, and the certificate on the terms of lending using a credit card attached to the case file does not contain information about the receipt of the specified documents by the borrower, familiarization of the latter with the specified certificate and examples of the use of credit funds on the credit card. It also points out that the established interest of 60% of the overdue amount of debt is unfair in the sense of Article 18 of the Law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights” and contradicts Article 21 of the specified law. During the validity of the terms of the credit agreement, he has the status of a serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and benefits provided for in Clause 15 of Article 14 of the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families” are extended to them, i.e. they cannot be held liable in the form of fines and penalties for non-fulfillment of obligations to use the loan, and there is no obligation to pay interest on the use of the loan.

What was the court’s decision? The court partially satisfied the claim of the commercial bank “PrivatBank” joint-stock company. From the husband, in favor of the financial institution, the debt under the credit agreement b/n dated February 15, 2022 in the amount of 42,517 hryvnias will be collected.

“It can be seen from the military ticket that the defendant has been enrolled in military service since February 27, 2022 on the basis of the decree of the President of Ukraine dated February 24, 2022 No. 64/2022 “On General Mobilization”. According to the certificate issued on April 23, 2024, he is a participant in hostilities. The specified circumstances indicate that the defendant is subject to Article 15 14 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Social and Legal Status of Military Servicemen and Members of Their Families”, therefore, the interest for the use of the loan is not subject to collection. The court’s conclusions based on the consideration of the claim and the decision on the distribution of legal costs. The court, taking into account the above-mentioned norms of the current legislation, comes to the conclusion that the claims of the joint-stock company “PrivatBank” to regarding the collection of the debt under the credit agreement is subject to partial satisfaction. As the court found, when calculating the debt, the defendant took into account the partial repayment of the debt by the accrued interest of 4,925 hryvnias. Under such circumstances, the court considers that, according to the account statement and calculation of the debt, the defendant paid 5,705 hryvnias in repayment of the debt with accrued interest, therefore, the debt under the credit agreement in the amount of 42,517 hryvnias is subject to recovery in favor of the plaintiff, based on the following calculation: 48,223 hryvnias (debt due to the body) – 5,705 hryvnias (payment of interest) = 42,517 hryvnias,” the court emphasized.

The source